Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha

79 ITR 603Supreme Court of India1971#206 most cited

What is Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha authority for?

A valid reassessment under Section 147 requires concrete 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment, not mere suspicion or a desire to conduct fishing and roving enquiries. If the first proviso to Section 147 applies, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, not just a mere charge of bogus expenses.

363

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha · Section 147 · Section 148 · reasons to believe · reopening assessment · fishing enquiries · roving enquiries · escapement of income · first proviso to Section 147 · failure to disclose material facts · sanction under Section 151

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 147Section 151Section 143(3)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 68Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)sanctioning authoritysection 151(2)sanction under section 151section 148(2)section 151(1)approval under section 151material facts necessary for assessmentsection 158bgfirst proviso to section 147live linksection 149(1)(b)

Judgments citing Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha

Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5722/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIALMEMBER AND SH.B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6356 to 6361 /DEL/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 to 2013-14 , 2015-16 & 2016-17 DCIT Sudhir Dhingra Central Circle- II Vs F-25, Radhey Mohan Gurgaon Drive Bandh Road South West Delhi PAN No.AAFPD 7443K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA No.5721to 5722/DEL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Sudhir Dhingra DCIT F-25, Radhey Mohan Vs Central Circle-II Drive Bandh Road Gurgaon South West Delhi PAN No.AAFPD 7443K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2013-14…

Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5721/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIALMEMBER AND SH.B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6356 to 6361 /DEL/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 to 2013-14 , 2015-16 & 2016-17 DCIT Sudhir Dhingra Central Circle- II Vs F-25, Radhey Mohan Gurgaon Drive Bandh Road South West Delhi PAN No.AAFPD 7443K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA No.5721to 5722/DEL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Sudhir Dhingra DCIT F-25, Radhey Mohan Vs Central Circle-II Drive Bandh Road Gurgaon South West Delhi PAN No.AAFPD 7443K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2013-14…

Anoop Thatai, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5719/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIALMEMBER AND SH.B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6356 to 6361 /DEL/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 to 2013-14 , 2015-16 & 2016-17 DCIT Sudhir Dhingra Central Circle- II Vs F-25, Radhey Mohan Gurgaon Drive Bandh Road South West Delhi PAN No.AAFPD 7443K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA No.5721to 5722/DEL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Sudhir Dhingra DCIT F-25, Radhey Mohan Vs Central Circle-II Drive Bandh Road Gurgaon South West Delhi PAN No.AAFPD 7443K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2013-14…

Intime Realty Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6357/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2021AY 2010-11
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

…20. 6 M/s. Intime Realty P. Ltd., (b) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. N.C. Cables Limited reported in 391 ITR 11 (Del) (c) Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P.Chaliha & Others reported in 79 ITR 603 (SC) (d) Decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. reported in 231 Taxman 73. SLP of revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed in 237 Taxman 378. (e) Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Astra Exim Pvt. Ltd., vs. ITO in ITA No.277/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2…

Vijayshree Food Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 587/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Vijayshree Food Products P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O Ravi Gupta, Advocate, Central Circle-30, E-6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv4721C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th December, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Export Of Tobacco Products. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014 Declaring The Loss Of Rs.18,78,467/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 26Th November, 2014 At The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment As Per The Provisions Of Section 147 Of The Act By Recording The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…: 51 DTR 51 (Del.); (B) German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom.); (C) United Electrical Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del.); (D) CIT Vs Goyanka Lime 237 Taxman 378(SC); (E). CIT Vs N.C. Cables, 98 CCH 18 (Del); and (F) Chuga Mai Rajpal, 79 ITR 603(SC) Larger Bench. 11. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that perusal of sequence of events would prove beyond doubt that AO has passed the final order of assessment within four weeks of the order of disposing the objection of assessee. This is another ground for annulling the assessment. He submitted that in the following judgments the vario…

Smt. Manju Devi Kalal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-3, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/JPR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 50/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Smt. Manju Devi Kalal, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. C/O-Pankaj Prince & Associates, Ward- 4(3), S-2, Shreeji Chambers, 6B, Purohit Jaipur. Ji Ka Bagh, Gopinath Marg, Near Sbi, M.I. Road, Jaipur. Pan No.: Akdpk 6807 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Kumar Garg (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Smt.Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23 /11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 23/03/2018 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee:

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Kumar Garg (CA)For Respondent: Smt.Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…id. Some of the judgments are as follows: 1. CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd.- (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) [PB 7-8] 2. CIT vs. S Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd.- (2015) 56 taxman.com 390 MP (HC) [PB 9-11] 3. Chhugamal Rajpal vs. SP Chalitha and others 79 ITR 603 (SC) 4. CIT vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. ITA 335/2015 (Delhi High Court) 5. Gorika Investment and Exports(P) Ltd vs. ITO (ITA 3396/Del/2018) [PB 12-24] 6. ITO vs. Virat Credit & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 89/DeI/2012) 7. Hirachand Kanuga vs. DOT (ITA 4261 & 4262/Mum/2012) 8. Amarlal Bajaj vs. ACIT (ITA 611/Mum/2004) 9. ITO vs. Direct Sales (P) Ltd. (ITA…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharaji Education Trust, Ghaziabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 5138/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]–
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…nate bench in Eminent Computers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA. No. 6372/Del/2019 dated 24.11.2020. He specifically referred to para Nos. 20 to 23 of the said decision. He further relied on following judicial precedents:- i. Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors. - 79 ITR 603 (SC); ii. Arjun Singh vs Asstt. Director of Income Tax (M.P.) reported in (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP); iii. CIT vs M/s S.Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd 231 Taxman 0073 Dated 15.10.2014 (MP) approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC). iv. Pr. CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd 391 ITR 11 (Del) v. Maruti Clean Coal& Power Ltd Vs ACIT WP(T) No…

Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 59/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 7/58, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Ward 4(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Advpa 6150 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Pravin Kr. Saraswat (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 27/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Learned C.I.T. (A) Has Erred For Not Considering The Issue For Validity Of Issue Notice U/S 148 Of I.T. Act, 1961, While There Was No Escapement Of Income On Part Of Assessee. The Initiation Of Proceedings Was Only On Behest Of I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Who Has Intimated To A.O. For Advancement Of Loan Rs.53,95,000/- Given By Assessee To Pooja Agarwal, While Concern A.O. Has Accepted Said Loan In Her Hands After Detailed Examination. Hence Initiation Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Kr. Saraswat (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

…icates mechanical satisfaction of Ld. Joint CIT, without application of mind, which is not the sufficient compliance of Section 151. Law on this point is now well settled that mechanical satisfaction is not sufficient. a) In Chhugamal Rajpal Vs S.P. Chaliha, 79 ITR 603 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held "We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner has mechanically accorded permission. He did not himself record that he was satisfied that this was a fit case for the issue of a notice under section 148. To question No. 8 in the report which reads "Whether the Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case f…

Smt. Uma Mandal, 754, Ladhon Ka Mohalla, Behind Minerva Cinema, M.D. Road, Jaipur-302004, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2), Jaipur, Ward-5(2)

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 466/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 466/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Uma Mandal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 754, Lodhon Ka Mohalla, Ward 5(4), Behind Minerva Cinema, M.D. Jaipur. Road, Jaipur-302004. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Apspm 2419 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vishal Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 22/02/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Action Of Ld. A.O. In Assessing The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 2037281.00 Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Earned Only Commission Income At The Rate Of 0.25 Percent & Treating Percent Of The Deposits In Her Bank Account As Her Income. The Additions Of Pursuance Of Same, Are Prayed To Be Deleted 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Action Of Ld. A.O. Of Initiating Penalty Under Section 271A & 271B Ignoring The Fact

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271A

…Credit & Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (CO No. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No. 89/Del/2012). (v) Hari Ram Gupta Vs ITO in ITA 5111/Del/2013 order dated 07/07/2016. (vi) M/s Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No. 2421/Del/2017 (Del Trib) (vii) Chhugamal Rajpal Vs S.P. Chaliha 79 ITR 603 (SC) (viii) DCIT Vs Kanchan India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1280 & 1281/JP/2018.” 11. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. 12. We have considering the rival contentions of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions cited in the orders passed b…

Swami Keshwanand Shikshan Sansthan, Sikar vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward-2, Jaipur

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 310/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 309 & 310/Jp/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke I.T.O. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Ward-2, N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 Jaipur (Rajasthan). (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 17/09/2020 & 10/09/2020 For The A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…dered view that only mentioning the word “Yes” or “Yes I am satisfied”, is not sufficient compliance for according the approval/sanction for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal Vs S.P.Chaliha & Ors. 79 ITR 603 (SC) had categorically held that “No notice shall be issued under s. 148 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the CIT is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the ITO that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.” In case the CIT had mechanically accorded permission by himself not recording that…

Swami Keshwanand Shikshan Sansthan, Sikar vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward-2, Jaipur

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 309/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 309 & 310/Jp/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke I.T.O. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Ward-2, N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 Jaipur (Rajasthan). (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 17/09/2020 & 10/09/2020 For The A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…dered view that only mentioning the word “Yes” or “Yes I am satisfied”, is not sufficient compliance for according the approval/sanction for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal Vs S.P.Chaliha & Ors. 79 ITR 603 (SC) had categorically held that “No notice shall be issued under s. 148 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the CIT is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the ITO that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.” In case the CIT had mechanically accorded permission by himself not recording that…

ACIT Cir. 12(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2930/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2021AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151

…rportedly in the possession of the ld AO, on the basis of which he formed such reason to believe. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following decisions :- (i) Decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs S.P.Chaliha reported in 79 ITR 603 (SC) ; (ii) Decision of Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in the case of United Electrical Co. Pvt Ltd vs CIT reported in 258 ITR 317 (Del); (iii) Decision of Hon‘ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s S Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd reported in 231 Taxman 73 (MP) – Special Leave Petition of the revenue was dismissed by the Hon‘ble Apex C…

M/S. Ansys Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2038/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

…has been no new material available with the Ld.AO which could justify the reopening of a concluded assessment beyond a period of 4 years. 25. Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs SP Chalihan reported in 79 ITR 603 and decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Chaitanya Properties Pvt.Ltd reported in (2016) 67 Taxmann.com 201 in support of his claim that the reasons recorded by Ld.AO do not spell out the escapement of income was due to the failure on part of assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for Page 14 of 15…

M/S. Ansys Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2037/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

…has been no new material available with the Ld.AO which could justify the reopening of a concluded assessment beyond a period of 4 years. 25. Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs SP Chalihan reported in 79 ITR 603 and decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Chaitanya Properties Pvt.Ltd reported in (2016) 67 Taxmann.com 201 in support of his claim that the reasons recorded by Ld.AO do not spell out the escapement of income was due to the failure on part of assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for Page 14 of 15…

M/S. Ansys Software Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2036/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

…has been no new material available with the Ld.AO which could justify the reopening of a concluded assessment beyond a period of 4 years. 25. Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs SP Chalihan reported in 79 ITR 603 and decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Chaitanya Properties Pvt.Ltd reported in (2016) 67 Taxmann.com 201 in support of his claim that the reasons recorded by Ld.AO do not spell out the escapement of income was due to the failure on part of assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for Page 14 of 15…

District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited, Bidar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Gulbarga

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 551/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

…has been no new material available with the Ld.AO which could justify the reopening of a concluded assessment beyond a period of 4 years. 25. Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs SP Chalihan reported in 79 ITR 603 and decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Chaitanya Properties Pvt.Ltd reported in (2016) 67 Taxmann.com 201 in support of his claim that the reasons recorded by Ld.AO do not spell out the escapement of income was due to the failure on part of assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for Page 14 of 15…

M/S. Marble Art, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…uld not be mechanical but should be objective satisfaction and satisfaction recorded should reflect that there is application of mind. In fact, the issue is no more res integra. The Apex Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors reported in 79 ITR 603 (SC) has held that important safeguards are provided in sections 147 and 151 of the Act and same cannot be lightly treated by the Commissioner. It was held that while granting the approval, the Commissioner should give reason for coming to the conclusion that it is a fit case for the issue of a notice under section 148 of the Act. The jurisdiction…

M/S. Marble Art, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…uld not be mechanical but should be objective satisfaction and satisfaction recorded should reflect that there is application of mind. In fact, the issue is no more res integra. The Apex Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors reported in 79 ITR 603 (SC) has held that important safeguards are provided in sections 147 and 151 of the Act and same cannot be lightly treated by the Commissioner. It was held that while granting the approval, the Commissioner should give reason for coming to the conclusion that it is a fit case for the issue of a notice under section 148 of the Act. The jurisdiction…

M/S. Marble Art, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…uld not be mechanical but should be objective satisfaction and satisfaction recorded should reflect that there is application of mind. In fact, the issue is no more res integra. The Apex Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors reported in 79 ITR 603 (SC) has held that important safeguards are provided in sections 147 and 151 of the Act and same cannot be lightly treated by the Commissioner. It was held that while granting the approval, the Commissioner should give reason for coming to the conclusion that it is a fit case for the issue of a notice under section 148 of the Act. The jurisdiction…

Smt. Muktaben Nishantbhai Patel, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 6/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…I(2), Calcutta." It is abundantly clear that the two reasons which have been given for the belief which was formed by the Income-tax Officer hopelessly fail to satisfy the requirements of the statute. In a recent case, Chhugamal Rajpal v. S. P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC), which came up before this court, a similar situation had arisen and under the directions of the court, the department produced the records to show that the Income-tax Officer had complied with the conditions laid down in the statute for issuing a notice relating to escapement of income. There also, the report submitted by the Officer to the…